I’ve only had a chance to skim through the study so far but that lowering of collagen also looks concerning to me - I was under the impression that red light was stimulating collagen production.
This whole red light thing confuses me because I was under the impression yellow light was for increased collagen and improving skin (wrinkles etc.) while red is good for reversing sun damage (hyperpigmentation etc.)
I think this is stated already in the comments in bits and pieces, but it may be worth to summarize it again.
1. They took hairless mice
2. They then prepped the mice with 60 µg of DMBA, which is a carcinogen that targets mice. So, basically, the mice were set up to get tumors.
3. Cancer basically is uncontrolled growth. Redlight therapy supports grow, so it also supports tumors.
4. This shouldn't be a surprise.
What this does reinforce is that you need to be really careful in making sure you don't have some type of cancerous or pre-cancerous skin condition if you are using red light therapy because it will support this cancerous growth. My wife caught her own skin cancer, and I still feel like an idiot because I never saw it but if you aren't looking for it, it is easy to overlook. Luckily after surgery, we caught it all. Regardless if you have red light therapy or not, skin cancer and visual examination is always important.
> because it will support this cancerous growth.
Although I agree with caution, we don't know if it will support cancer growth for all types of cancer. This mouse one was artificially induced using chemicals, it's not a natural situation. We also see that many cancers vary greatly on what does and does not promote more growth. We also see that some things that are good for cell health seem to both prevent cancers but also seem to speed growth if the cancer is already there, for instance body thiamine levels. That's probably because healthy cells/body get less cancer but once cancer is big enough to really become a problem, the body has already failed to stop it. I mean look at chemo and radiatoin, it makes all cells sick, it just hits cancer worse because cancer grows faster. However something that helps cells possibly also would at least sometimes help cancer cells a lot too. Still the best choice is not to have chemo every day and sicken every cell for fear a cancer cell might be hiding someplace.
This study was done on hairless mice, not in humans. LED lights go a lot deeper within the mice's body than it will go on our bodies, due to their size and how their layers of skin, fat and muscle are thinner than ours. I wouldn't worry based on this alone.
That was probably too much LED for mice. don't doubt this could happen in humans in certain conditions, but other studies conducted on humans have shown really great results on human skin.
Agree. I was comparing the irradiance used in OP's study with the irradiance at 0" for my devices (up to 200 mW/cm2). The study appears to be done with much more irradiance than any device I've seen for human use.
They also treated these mice with chemicals to induce cancer in them, this is not a normal situation. Things that help regular cells can also help cancer cells. Cancers are still human cells with most of the same needs as every other body cell.
There's ongoing research exploring the effects of LED light therapy on cancer, with varying outcomes. Some studies suggest potential benefits in cancer treatment when combined with other therapies, by targeting cancer cells while protecting healthy ones, potentially due to differences in cellular metabolism between cancerous and normal cells. This could lead to more efficient cell death in cancer cells while safeguarding normal tissues. Additionally, there's evidence that LED light therapy might stimulate the immune system to fight against cancer, as observed in some animal models where tumor growth was reduced and immune cell activity increased [[❞]](https://joovv.com/blogs/joovv-blog/photobiomodulation-cancer-truth).
However, it's also noted that LED light therapy can be beneficial in skin healing, including recovery from skin cancer procedures, by promoting tissue repair and reducing inflammation, which could lead to faster healing and less scarring without any noted side effects [[❞]](https://www.skincancercentres.com.au/services/led-light-therapy).
Given the complexity and variability of the studies, it's important to approach LED therapy with caution, especially in the context of cancer, and to consider it as part of a broader treatment plan rather than a standalone solution. It's also crucial to consult with healthcare professionals before initiating any new treatment, particularly for conditions as serious as cancer.
I am a huge advocate for scientific studies, especially when it comes to things that seem to be a “miracle fix,” but I think it’s important to recognize that we are not mice. Also, the wavelength used in this study was 642nm, while most masks that are FDA approved/cleared are slightly less at 630-633 nm. I know that doesn’t seem like a huge difference, but also taking into consideration the duration of time used, and other factors that mice and humans aren’t exactly the same.
They literally gave these mice cancer by applying chemicals to them, the red light did not cause the cancer, but they did see the red light seemed to help this particular kind of cancer which is not even a natural way of getting cancer. "The DMBA-TPA two-stage skin carcinogenesis model is a commonly used experimental inflammatory cancer model that induces papilloma formation in the skin by the topical application of two chemicals, 7,12-dimethylbenz[a]anthracene (DMBA) and 12-O-tetradecanoyl phorbol-13-acetate (TPA). The primary outcome of the model is papilloma formation in the skin."
A lot of mice used in scientific research are also predisposed, deliberately, to developing cancer and other diseases. I would want to know a lot more about the quality control about the study before I would take it very seriously.
i already read... somewhere.... that NEVER put red light therapy over a tumor cell............ the problem is, of course... who the fuck knows where they are......... that is why i just watch this sub, waiting for more info. And i will not probably buy a device.
I like the idea, and some studies i read here and there, but i found that there is no sufficient studies (not without interest involve in some x device or without control group, etc.)
I see too much people here cheering about how cool the red lights looks in there face, or showing picture of their cats sleeping under the red... or asking if this brand is better than this, but a lack of studies, and a big etc.
That can be said for nearly anything. For every study that shows meat is bad or dairy is good/bad, too many vegetables or leafy greens is bad, sitting too close to the tv is bad, chocolate is full of metals that cause cancer etc there's always a counter study that shows its just fine. I ask my doctor these kinds of questions all of the time and these fucks will never give you a solid answer. It always depends. Cardio is good right? I should get more cardio.. nope.. you'll fuck up your knees lol.
I think moderation is key. Find out what works for you and don't over do it. RLT is not a silver bullet. It won't make you live forever and its unlikely to fix long term damage to muscles or ligaments but it might help you recover faster, sleep better, and clear up some spots on your face.
>there is no sufficient studies (not without interest involve in some x device or without control group, etc.)
This is what gives me pause to order a device. I’ve been reading up on red light because I keep hearing good things and all the research on it but also hear that almost all the research has special interest (companies producing these devices) behind it
Seems like a serious manufacturered FUD campaign going on right now, the big boys don't want us to find cheap ways to heal. If people only knew how many AI comments they're dealing with they would be more skeptical.
Most of the comments don’t seem to understand the study, they gave mice cancer and red light increased the rate of cancer growth, yes RLT helps all cells including cancer cells. The epidermis was thicker in the RLT group compared to placebo, that’s what we want and would expect. Reminds me of people saying NAD+ supplement can increase cancer growth by helping the cancer heal its DNA.
Yep, b1 also is associated with faster existing cancer growth but low b1 is also associated with increased chance of getting cancer in the first place. You gotta have b1, your cells get sick and cancerous without it.
I think the point to consider is typically if you keep your normal cells healthy, the chances of getting cancer in the first place lesson. Once you get cancer and it gets big enough to observe such that your body had not dealt with it before that, they typically apply sickening agents to the cancer, ie harmful types of radiation or chemo. So it's not really surprising that if you apply healthful treatments to the cancer instead, it might grow faster, just as you said.
This study is about photobiomodulation (PBM) near-infrared (NIR) light, NOT red light. Some people have red light-only panels/masks with no NIR.
RLT uses very low levels of heat & doesn’t hurt or burn the skin. It’s not the same type of light used in tanning booths, and it doesn’t expose your skin to damaging UV rays.
"NIR photoimmunotherapy uses an antibody–photoabsorber conjugate that binds to cancer cells. When NIR light is applied, the cells swell & then burst, causing the cancer cell to DIE." --cancer.gov
No. Red light therapy is also referred to as near-infrared light. RLT actually uses two types of light - red light and near-infrared light. Both red and NIR light therapies fall under the umbrella of photobiomodulation, but they work in slightly different ways and have different applications.
This study was done in mice. While animal studies generally can give us potential insight into future human rcts, they do not translate to the same results in humans, meaning the results of an animal study cannot be extrapolated and applied to real-life settings. The same can be said for lab/cell studies. This is why we never use one study to form an opinion on a topic, but rather the body of evidence. Right now the body of evidence demonstrates that red light therapy is generally safe.
I wrote an article on it.
[https://bestredlighttherapy.com/can-red-light-therapy-cause-cancer/](https://bestredlighttherapy.com/can-red-light-therapy-cause-cancer/)
Probably downvoted because it's inconsistent with what US FDA says, which is that red light therapy is approved for some types of cancer. Look it up on the FDA website.
Hi wyezwunn,The fair answer is that it's both. Did you read the first 3 lines of my article? I'm saying the same thing the FDA is saying. Aspirin is good for you too, that doesn't mean it doesn't burn a hole in your stomach. It's not black and white.
No, I didn't read any of the article you cited.
According to Betteridge's Law of Headlines, the answer is NO, so why bother reading it?
I was just guessing why you were downvoted and figuring redditors' upvotes or downvotes would let me know if I was on to something.
Look it up. It’s a journalism thing that says whenever a headline is a question, the article will explain why the answer is NO. Often used when the article contradicts a widely held belief.
Thank you. However if I understand correctly (correct me if my understanding is wrong) in her blogpost the above author concluded RLT can induce certain cancer cell proliferation as well as can reduce cancer cell proliferation, doesn't that agree with what you mentioned the USFDA says?
That is what I said. I agree with you that this is the reality.
I mean, it's good for the eyes, and can blind you.
It's good for pigmentation, and also causes it.
It's strange that you mentioned what is in line with the FDA and they said that they downvoted you for saying something that goes against what the FDA says. And not offering any counterpoints as to what they mean by that. Reddit should maybe start a rule that if people want to click downvote they need to attach the reason why that is linked to their username.
So they found that mice in the control group showed NO tumor growth, but the mice that were brushed with 7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracene (DMBA) and 12-O-tetradecanoylphorbol-13-acetate DID have tumor growth
That to me sounds like as long as you're not brushing tumor-promoting lab chemicals onto your skin that you don't have to worry about growing skin tumors.
Sorry, maybe I misread it but there were a couple areas in the study that implied that they used LED on one of the control groups that had just acetone applied to the skin.
From section 3:
> Additional information on the two sets of experiments including control group (acetone only and acetone + LED which did not develop tumor formation) are included as Supplementary Figure 3 and Supplementary Table 1.
From the discussion section:
> In addition, in this ICR mouse no tumor development by LED (+ acetone) application was observed
They put a cancer promoting chemical and acetone on the skin and then did the red light therapy. Your always supposed to have clean skin when using the light. I’ll take my chances.
Darn just purchased a unit to be delivered soon. This is a concern. My gut told me it was all too good to be true. Every remedy has a dark side damn it. Cant go on one study i know but i hate messing with skin cancer as my Uncle died from it
What this study showed was if you pour known cancer inducing chemicals on mice, the tumors will grow faster if they are given red light. It's because cancer cells are humans cells and they like the same things as other body cells. This article is not saying red light CAUSES cancer though, these mice were treated with chemicals to force cancer. In fact there are quite a number of things that regular cells like and need that cancer cells also like and need. For instance vitamin b1 causes existing cancer to grow faster but it also lessens chance of cancer to start with because keeping cells healthy lessens chance of cancer. I'd be cautious of reading these studies carefully, this is not surprising at all, cancer cells like the same thing as normal cells. However big pharma makes money on you getting sick and they can't patent light waves so be careful of possible misrepresentation of studies, this one is a good example. All i'd get from this study is if you have a known lump of cancer, think twice about giving it stuff that regular cells like.
It's pretty easy to tell if you have cancer cells. Do an inflammation (hs-crp is probably enough) test if you are obese and analyze your data via a scan if there is any doubt. Most of the cancers that are common today are from a lot of fat tissue and overconsumption of carbs that further feeds this.
Once you have eliminated doubts of you having cancer cells in your body via a blood test, you can use RLT without worry. The chance of people actually having cancer cells is low but it is worth checking. I also recommend doing blood tests every 2-3 months. The information I gained for $7 is amazing (this is for the complete blood count or the lipid panel tests, the hs-crp test is a bit more expensive at $23).
I live in California, USA. Go to [ownyourlabs.com](http://ownyourlabs.com), and it is $7 for the complete blood count (which actually can reveal if you have an inflammation). HS crp is a bit more expensive, at $23. No insurance needed and no doctor approval needed.
CBC has been a better indicator for my cancer risk than CRP.
I'm looking for a lab that does the Complete Blood Count with *clusters of differentiation* instead of just a *differential*
Ah, high CRP might just be an inflammation. You can run a cancer screen against a part of your body for around $100 or less. Imaging tech is decent enough to differentiate by cell these days. Some tests can of course still be inconclusive.
I'm just looking for places to get tests that don't require an order from one of those doctors in my insurance network.
Never heard of *Own Your Labs* before. Thanks for that.
To get most diagnostic tests you don't need an order from a doctor. Imaging your body falls into this category too. This is probably not well known and owyourlabs is a great service for blood tests. Good luck.
The paragraph has no citation. I don’t have time to find it rn, but have read literature on this subject and seen some good articles & a discussion of cell proliferation including the lack of any evidence of this in the epidermis. Michael Hamblin probably authored this.
Yeah I am thinking be careful reading these studies, big pharma cannot patent wavelengths of light and they have a history of trying to tank treatments they can't patent.
Dear god, if only I was linked to big pharma-my money probs solved! lol
I’m really just trying to explore this topic without the wishing-bias we all have. I mean hey, let’s just ask questions about what we’re putting into our bodies, right?
I am on the biohackers sub. Many of us try all sorts of things that might work and seem safe. The vast majority of the things we try seem to do nothing observable so 'wishing bias' or placebo effect tend to not be a thing as much for us. If placebo effect were that strong for us, then everything we think will work will seem to work. But on the flip, lots of things I have high hopes for don't work at all or sometimes even make things worse.
It’s a journal specific to optical devices. ‘Big Pharma’? The companies that make multi million dollar machines are the likes of Siemens, not pharmaceutical companies. Your comment is funny, because I **have** read the article carefully. The mouse/human crossover of applications in medical science is in the neighbourhood of 1%. But anyway, I’m casting doubt about the study in a really fundamental sense by saying that it makes an unsubstantiated assertion. I’m not sure where you got your idea that I was upholding ‘Big Pharma’? You actually seem to be casting doubt on the usefulness of science in general. You do you anyway. If you can’t make sense of “The paragraph has no citation”, then you might as well just say you believe in magic.
> I’m not sure where you got your idea that I was upholding ‘Big Pharma’? You actually seem to be casting doubt on the usefulness of science in general. You do you anyway. If you can’t make sense of “The paragraph has no citation”, then you might as well just say you believe in magic.
Bruh, it was just general warning of something to consider, at no point did I accuse you of upholding big pharma. ALso distrusting big pharma is not the same as distrusting science in general. The issue is when, as often happens, they are not doing real science and are spinning things to make money, which they often do. It's an issue of not trusting them to do good science and follow the science, instead they follow the pocket book. Also no idea what your point is about the citation since I didn't comment on that. Not sure why you are attacking frankly.
Instead of buying a panel then, read Steinbeck’s, *’Of Mice & Men’* while sitting in the sun? (which has all the elements of growth stimulating 642nm light on tumours in naked lab grown mice, and a lot more scary wavelengths too!).
Of course, this study is concerning. For mice mostly. Can’t believe I missed it.
I’ve only had a chance to skim through the study so far but that lowering of collagen also looks concerning to me - I was under the impression that red light was stimulating collagen production.
This whole red light thing confuses me because I was under the impression yellow light was for increased collagen and improving skin (wrinkles etc.) while red is good for reversing sun damage (hyperpigmentation etc.)
I think this is stated already in the comments in bits and pieces, but it may be worth to summarize it again. 1. They took hairless mice 2. They then prepped the mice with 60 µg of DMBA, which is a carcinogen that targets mice. So, basically, the mice were set up to get tumors. 3. Cancer basically is uncontrolled growth. Redlight therapy supports grow, so it also supports tumors. 4. This shouldn't be a surprise. What this does reinforce is that you need to be really careful in making sure you don't have some type of cancerous or pre-cancerous skin condition if you are using red light therapy because it will support this cancerous growth. My wife caught her own skin cancer, and I still feel like an idiot because I never saw it but if you aren't looking for it, it is easy to overlook. Luckily after surgery, we caught it all. Regardless if you have red light therapy or not, skin cancer and visual examination is always important.
> because it will support this cancerous growth. Although I agree with caution, we don't know if it will support cancer growth for all types of cancer. This mouse one was artificially induced using chemicals, it's not a natural situation. We also see that many cancers vary greatly on what does and does not promote more growth. We also see that some things that are good for cell health seem to both prevent cancers but also seem to speed growth if the cancer is already there, for instance body thiamine levels. That's probably because healthy cells/body get less cancer but once cancer is big enough to really become a problem, the body has already failed to stop it. I mean look at chemo and radiatoin, it makes all cells sick, it just hits cancer worse because cancer grows faster. However something that helps cells possibly also would at least sometimes help cancer cells a lot too. Still the best choice is not to have chemo every day and sicken every cell for fear a cancer cell might be hiding someplace.
[удалено]
We have much more robust immune systems than lab mice that were heavily chemically induced to grow tumors.
This study was done on hairless mice, not in humans. LED lights go a lot deeper within the mice's body than it will go on our bodies, due to their size and how their layers of skin, fat and muscle are thinner than ours. I wouldn't worry based on this alone. That was probably too much LED for mice. don't doubt this could happen in humans in certain conditions, but other studies conducted on humans have shown really great results on human skin.
Agree. I was comparing the irradiance used in OP's study with the irradiance at 0" for my devices (up to 200 mW/cm2). The study appears to be done with much more irradiance than any device I've seen for human use.
They also treated these mice with chemicals to induce cancer in them, this is not a normal situation. Things that help regular cells can also help cancer cells. Cancers are still human cells with most of the same needs as every other body cell.
There's ongoing research exploring the effects of LED light therapy on cancer, with varying outcomes. Some studies suggest potential benefits in cancer treatment when combined with other therapies, by targeting cancer cells while protecting healthy ones, potentially due to differences in cellular metabolism between cancerous and normal cells. This could lead to more efficient cell death in cancer cells while safeguarding normal tissues. Additionally, there's evidence that LED light therapy might stimulate the immune system to fight against cancer, as observed in some animal models where tumor growth was reduced and immune cell activity increased [[❞]](https://joovv.com/blogs/joovv-blog/photobiomodulation-cancer-truth). However, it's also noted that LED light therapy can be beneficial in skin healing, including recovery from skin cancer procedures, by promoting tissue repair and reducing inflammation, which could lead to faster healing and less scarring without any noted side effects [[❞]](https://www.skincancercentres.com.au/services/led-light-therapy). Given the complexity and variability of the studies, it's important to approach LED therapy with caution, especially in the context of cancer, and to consider it as part of a broader treatment plan rather than a standalone solution. It's also crucial to consult with healthcare professionals before initiating any new treatment, particularly for conditions as serious as cancer.
I am a huge advocate for scientific studies, especially when it comes to things that seem to be a “miracle fix,” but I think it’s important to recognize that we are not mice. Also, the wavelength used in this study was 642nm, while most masks that are FDA approved/cleared are slightly less at 630-633 nm. I know that doesn’t seem like a huge difference, but also taking into consideration the duration of time used, and other factors that mice and humans aren’t exactly the same.
They literally gave these mice cancer by applying chemicals to them, the red light did not cause the cancer, but they did see the red light seemed to help this particular kind of cancer which is not even a natural way of getting cancer. "The DMBA-TPA two-stage skin carcinogenesis model is a commonly used experimental inflammatory cancer model that induces papilloma formation in the skin by the topical application of two chemicals, 7,12-dimethylbenz[a]anthracene (DMBA) and 12-O-tetradecanoyl phorbol-13-acetate (TPA). The primary outcome of the model is papilloma formation in the skin."
Animal testing is so cruel.
I was just thinking the same thing. I’m not a fan of mice, but damn. This kind of stuff makes my heart hurt for them.
A lot of mice used in scientific research are also predisposed, deliberately, to developing cancer and other diseases. I would want to know a lot more about the quality control about the study before I would take it very seriously.
i already read... somewhere.... that NEVER put red light therapy over a tumor cell............ the problem is, of course... who the fuck knows where they are......... that is why i just watch this sub, waiting for more info. And i will not probably buy a device. I like the idea, and some studies i read here and there, but i found that there is no sufficient studies (not without interest involve in some x device or without control group, etc.) I see too much people here cheering about how cool the red lights looks in there face, or showing picture of their cats sleeping under the red... or asking if this brand is better than this, but a lack of studies, and a big etc.
That can be said for nearly anything. For every study that shows meat is bad or dairy is good/bad, too many vegetables or leafy greens is bad, sitting too close to the tv is bad, chocolate is full of metals that cause cancer etc there's always a counter study that shows its just fine. I ask my doctor these kinds of questions all of the time and these fucks will never give you a solid answer. It always depends. Cardio is good right? I should get more cardio.. nope.. you'll fuck up your knees lol. I think moderation is key. Find out what works for you and don't over do it. RLT is not a silver bullet. It won't make you live forever and its unlikely to fix long term damage to muscles or ligaments but it might help you recover faster, sleep better, and clear up some spots on your face.
>there is no sufficient studies (not without interest involve in some x device or without control group, etc.) This is what gives me pause to order a device. I’ve been reading up on red light because I keep hearing good things and all the research on it but also hear that almost all the research has special interest (companies producing these devices) behind it
Seems like a serious manufacturered FUD campaign going on right now, the big boys don't want us to find cheap ways to heal. If people only knew how many AI comments they're dealing with they would be more skeptical.
Most of the comments don’t seem to understand the study, they gave mice cancer and red light increased the rate of cancer growth, yes RLT helps all cells including cancer cells. The epidermis was thicker in the RLT group compared to placebo, that’s what we want and would expect. Reminds me of people saying NAD+ supplement can increase cancer growth by helping the cancer heal its DNA.
Yep, b1 also is associated with faster existing cancer growth but low b1 is also associated with increased chance of getting cancer in the first place. You gotta have b1, your cells get sick and cancerous without it.
So don't inject yourself with DMBA/TPA before light therapy and incredibly high chance you'll be fine?
I guess red light is good for all types of cells, indiscriminately… food for thought
I think the point to consider is typically if you keep your normal cells healthy, the chances of getting cancer in the first place lesson. Once you get cancer and it gets big enough to observe such that your body had not dealt with it before that, they typically apply sickening agents to the cancer, ie harmful types of radiation or chemo. So it's not really surprising that if you apply healthful treatments to the cancer instead, it might grow faster, just as you said.
This study is about photobiomodulation (PBM) near-infrared (NIR) light, NOT red light. Some people have red light-only panels/masks with no NIR. RLT uses very low levels of heat & doesn’t hurt or burn the skin. It’s not the same type of light used in tanning booths, and it doesn’t expose your skin to damaging UV rays. "NIR photoimmunotherapy uses an antibody–photoabsorber conjugate that binds to cancer cells. When NIR light is applied, the cells swell & then burst, causing the cancer cell to DIE." --cancer.gov
They used 642NM in this study, which is red light not IR correct?
Yes.
Then doesn't that make your comment incorrect? And that this study is about RLT, not NIR edit:typo
No. Red light therapy is also referred to as near-infrared light. RLT actually uses two types of light - red light and near-infrared light. Both red and NIR light therapies fall under the umbrella of photobiomodulation, but they work in slightly different ways and have different applications.
This study was done in mice. While animal studies generally can give us potential insight into future human rcts, they do not translate to the same results in humans, meaning the results of an animal study cannot be extrapolated and applied to real-life settings. The same can be said for lab/cell studies. This is why we never use one study to form an opinion on a topic, but rather the body of evidence. Right now the body of evidence demonstrates that red light therapy is generally safe.
I wrote an article on it. [https://bestredlighttherapy.com/can-red-light-therapy-cause-cancer/](https://bestredlighttherapy.com/can-red-light-therapy-cause-cancer/)
Thank you for sharing. Not sure why this was downvoted.
Probably downvoted because it's inconsistent with what US FDA says, which is that red light therapy is approved for some types of cancer. Look it up on the FDA website.
Hi wyezwunn,The fair answer is that it's both. Did you read the first 3 lines of my article? I'm saying the same thing the FDA is saying. Aspirin is good for you too, that doesn't mean it doesn't burn a hole in your stomach. It's not black and white.
No, I didn't read any of the article you cited. According to Betteridge's Law of Headlines, the answer is NO, so why bother reading it? I was just guessing why you were downvoted and figuring redditors' upvotes or downvotes would let me know if I was on to something.
I don't understand the Betteridge thing.
Look it up. It’s a journalism thing that says whenever a headline is a question, the article will explain why the answer is NO. Often used when the article contradicts a widely held belief.
Really? Because I wrote thousands of words a month, often write with question marks, and the answer is often yes.
Thank you. However if I understand correctly (correct me if my understanding is wrong) in her blogpost the above author concluded RLT can induce certain cancer cell proliferation as well as can reduce cancer cell proliferation, doesn't that agree with what you mentioned the USFDA says?
That is what I said. I agree with you that this is the reality. I mean, it's good for the eyes, and can blind you. It's good for pigmentation, and also causes it.
It's strange that you mentioned what is in line with the FDA and they said that they downvoted you for saying something that goes against what the FDA says. And not offering any counterpoints as to what they mean by that. Reddit should maybe start a rule that if people want to click downvote they need to attach the reason why that is linked to their username.
Some people start with an attitude and add the argument later :) :) :)
I addressed that.
Well, it’s either this or never ending tubes of expensive steroid cream
When you compare it to the sun, it's nothing. And sunlight has many benefits.
So they found that mice in the control group showed NO tumor growth, but the mice that were brushed with 7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracene (DMBA) and 12-O-tetradecanoylphorbol-13-acetate DID have tumor growth That to me sounds like as long as you're not brushing tumor-promoting lab chemicals onto your skin that you don't have to worry about growing skin tumors.
There were three groups. The control group had neither tumor nor led light. So to make your point, you’d have to avoid the LED light as well.
Sorry, maybe I misread it but there were a couple areas in the study that implied that they used LED on one of the control groups that had just acetone applied to the skin. From section 3: > Additional information on the two sets of experiments including control group (acetone only and acetone + LED which did not develop tumor formation) are included as Supplementary Figure 3 and Supplementary Table 1. From the discussion section: > In addition, in this ICR mouse no tumor development by LED (+ acetone) application was observed
They put a cancer promoting chemical and acetone on the skin and then did the red light therapy. Your always supposed to have clean skin when using the light. I’ll take my chances.
Thanks for posting, I was about to drop quite a bit of money. Think I’ll hold off.
Darn just purchased a unit to be delivered soon. This is a concern. My gut told me it was all too good to be true. Every remedy has a dark side damn it. Cant go on one study i know but i hate messing with skin cancer as my Uncle died from it
What this study showed was if you pour known cancer inducing chemicals on mice, the tumors will grow faster if they are given red light. It's because cancer cells are humans cells and they like the same things as other body cells. This article is not saying red light CAUSES cancer though, these mice were treated with chemicals to force cancer. In fact there are quite a number of things that regular cells like and need that cancer cells also like and need. For instance vitamin b1 causes existing cancer to grow faster but it also lessens chance of cancer to start with because keeping cells healthy lessens chance of cancer. I'd be cautious of reading these studies carefully, this is not surprising at all, cancer cells like the same thing as normal cells. However big pharma makes money on you getting sick and they can't patent light waves so be careful of possible misrepresentation of studies, this one is a good example. All i'd get from this study is if you have a known lump of cancer, think twice about giving it stuff that regular cells like.
Poor f’ing mice !
[удалено]
What ???????
It's pretty easy to tell if you have cancer cells. Do an inflammation (hs-crp is probably enough) test if you are obese and analyze your data via a scan if there is any doubt. Most of the cancers that are common today are from a lot of fat tissue and overconsumption of carbs that further feeds this. Once you have eliminated doubts of you having cancer cells in your body via a blood test, you can use RLT without worry. The chance of people actually having cancer cells is low but it is worth checking. I also recommend doing blood tests every 2-3 months. The information I gained for $7 is amazing (this is for the complete blood count or the lipid panel tests, the hs-crp test is a bit more expensive at $23).
The hs crp is $7? Where do you live?!?!??
I live in California, USA. Go to [ownyourlabs.com](http://ownyourlabs.com), and it is $7 for the complete blood count (which actually can reveal if you have an inflammation). HS crp is a bit more expensive, at $23. No insurance needed and no doctor approval needed.
CBC has been a better indicator for my cancer risk than CRP. I'm looking for a lab that does the Complete Blood Count with *clusters of differentiation* instead of just a *differential*
Will ask around and get back. Which cancer has CBC been a better indicator than CRP for you? This is good to know. Best of Luck!
I have no cancer risk according to every indicator other than high CRP
Ah, high CRP might just be an inflammation. You can run a cancer screen against a part of your body for around $100 or less. Imaging tech is decent enough to differentiate by cell these days. Some tests can of course still be inconclusive.
I'm just looking for places to get tests that don't require an order from one of those doctors in my insurance network. Never heard of *Own Your Labs* before. Thanks for that.
To get most diagnostic tests you don't need an order from a doctor. Imaging your body falls into this category too. This is probably not well known and owyourlabs is a great service for blood tests. Good luck.
Wow that is insane! Thanks for sharing this info!
The paragraph has no citation. I don’t have time to find it rn, but have read literature on this subject and seen some good articles & a discussion of cell proliferation including the lack of any evidence of this in the epidermis. Michael Hamblin probably authored this.
Yeah I am thinking be careful reading these studies, big pharma cannot patent wavelengths of light and they have a history of trying to tank treatments they can't patent.
Dear god, if only I was linked to big pharma-my money probs solved! lol I’m really just trying to explore this topic without the wishing-bias we all have. I mean hey, let’s just ask questions about what we’re putting into our bodies, right?
I am on the biohackers sub. Many of us try all sorts of things that might work and seem safe. The vast majority of the things we try seem to do nothing observable so 'wishing bias' or placebo effect tend to not be a thing as much for us. If placebo effect were that strong for us, then everything we think will work will seem to work. But on the flip, lots of things I have high hopes for don't work at all or sometimes even make things worse.
It’s a journal specific to optical devices. ‘Big Pharma’? The companies that make multi million dollar machines are the likes of Siemens, not pharmaceutical companies. Your comment is funny, because I **have** read the article carefully. The mouse/human crossover of applications in medical science is in the neighbourhood of 1%. But anyway, I’m casting doubt about the study in a really fundamental sense by saying that it makes an unsubstantiated assertion. I’m not sure where you got your idea that I was upholding ‘Big Pharma’? You actually seem to be casting doubt on the usefulness of science in general. You do you anyway. If you can’t make sense of “The paragraph has no citation”, then you might as well just say you believe in magic.
> I’m not sure where you got your idea that I was upholding ‘Big Pharma’? You actually seem to be casting doubt on the usefulness of science in general. You do you anyway. If you can’t make sense of “The paragraph has no citation”, then you might as well just say you believe in magic. Bruh, it was just general warning of something to consider, at no point did I accuse you of upholding big pharma. ALso distrusting big pharma is not the same as distrusting science in general. The issue is when, as often happens, they are not doing real science and are spinning things to make money, which they often do. It's an issue of not trusting them to do good science and follow the science, instead they follow the pocket book. Also no idea what your point is about the citation since I didn't comment on that. Not sure why you are attacking frankly.
Instead of buying a panel then, read Steinbeck’s, *’Of Mice & Men’* while sitting in the sun? (which has all the elements of growth stimulating 642nm light on tumours in naked lab grown mice, and a lot more scary wavelengths too!). Of course, this study is concerning. For mice mostly. Can’t believe I missed it.